Sunday, November 21, 2010

Jim Townsend's Without Prejudice

Thanks to Kerry for sending me this excellent book, Jim Townsend's "Without Prejudice" (available here free). If you're interested in delving deep into the Crown's fraudulent banking, judicial, and religious systems that rule this world by supposed divine right, this book is a masterpiece, and highly recommended reading for all free men. Check out these choice highlights below, and click the link above to read the entire book.

Anarchy is simply an absence of government, an absence of that which does not and never will work. While the idea of having a government to govern the civil service seems legitimate enough, it is unfortunate that too few understand the difference between governing the civil service and subjecting the free citizens of the state to slavery. We are told that we are free as long as we follow all the “laws”. This is a lie. If you have to follow all this legislation that pretends to be “laws” you are a slave. It is that simple. The legal definition of free is “not subject to the legal constraint of another”. A free man is self governing. A slave follows rules and regulations. To those that constantly tell me we need to be subjected to all the rules and regulations of this foreign church I would ask, is the only thing that stops you from committing transgressions against your fellow man a written rule? The only thing that stops you killing everyone in sight: a written rule? The only thing that stops you from stealing everything you can at every opportunity a written rule? Is the only thing that compels action or in-action a written rule?

There is a lot being said about the New World Order. Some people see it as the Corporate takeover of the world; a global fascism of lawyers with society ruled by Judges. Some people see it as the common subjection of the nations of the world in a dominion of God’s chosen; global feudalism of priests with society ruled by Kings. In both orders the lot of Hu-Man-ity is as a ruled Slave. In actual fact these are the only two sides regardless of how many players are on the board and they are both owned by the same people. Their banker owners play both ends of the field to keep the human resource chattel herds running down the middle. Slavery rule through God “Law” is the Old World Order. Slavery rule through Man “Law” is the New World Order. Regardless of name, it is always slavery controlled by legislative “Law”. Theories abound about this “New World Order”. In our world of controlled media, the most idiotic are promoted as the first facts, the slightly more credible next and the obviously impossible last. However, if you do offer well-researched facts and someone gets wind of it, the lapdog media is sure to cry “conspiracy theorist” and do all they can to heap derision on it. Let us never the less endeavour to throw some light on the truth and apply some common sense.The entire raison d’etre behind the staged charade is TO INSTALL A PRIVATE LEGAL SYSTEM. Keep in mind always that free men are self-governing and when you apply it to them; LEGISLATION IS SLAVERY. The United Nations is all about establishing this private legal slavery system franchise globally.

Free men are self-governing and live in self-governing countries. Slaves are subjects that live in dominions of commonly United Nations. Notice that all that has happened is an evolutionary exchange of one form of slavery for another, national slavery to multinational to global slavery. The biggest problem in establishing a global slavery system is of course one of logistics. How do you govern six billion people? The first thing is to get rid of four fifths of the population. Getting rid of the eighty percent of the human race that are useless eaters solves eighty percent of the logistics problem. Attacking the food supply is the easiest way of achieving this. Genetically altered seeds cross-pollinate with other seeds in your garden making all of them infertile. Unhealthy foods, fertilizers and weed killers bring a plethora of health problems. Vaccinating animals with poisons that destroy their immune systems and then feeding them waste by-products from slaughter-houses in huge feed lots poison our food livestock and environment on a grand scale. Attacking the population directly is more risky. The most effective way to do that is covertly with drugs and toxins. The CIA has a long history of human experimentation. They are a front organization of the British Crown of Israel, the world’s largest covert drug dealer for centuries. Four times as many people die in North America every year from pharmaceutical drug use as from illicit narcotics. Not only is our food directly vaccinated with poisons that destroy their immune systems it is also “mandatory” to poison your children in the same way. SIDS, autism and a host of disorders are caused by vaccinations. As if controlling the population is not enough, governments use chemical trails and HAARP systems to control the weather. All these toxins rain down on us and flow into the same water that all the industrial toxins and fertilizers do, adding to all of the pollution. When you get sick from all of it you can run off to see a licensed Doctor; they are the number one cause of death in our society. One thing is certain about the New World Order; most of us are not welcome in it. Our very survival dictates that we understand who is behind this world order, what they want and how they expect to achieve it.

The most effective way of controlling a population is to lie to it. When people never know the truth, they never understand the true nature of the problem and they are hopelessly entrapped by the ensuing inability to find a solution. You cannot provide solutions for what you do not understand. For this reason, 90% of intelligence black operations are exercises in disinformation. One form of disinformation is History. Remember always that the victor in control writes officially sanctioned His-story. Another is to give 80% of the truth and 20% obvious nonsense. Hearing only the 80% truth later, many will automatically equate it with the 20% nonsense that first accompanied it and discredit all of it. Another is to simply lie outright and then challenge your opponent to prove you wrong rather than provide proof of what you contend.

The natural “Law” is of necessity unwritten. The only way you can lawfully be compelled to court is if you have done another hu-man an injury; physical, mental or financial. To render unto every man his due, each case must be looked at and weighed upon all the circumstances of the event. Since each moment of time is unique and discrete, so are all claims. A man, or natural person, is called to answer a claim in front of a jury of his peers. It is rationalized that a dozen people from his society will understand if he has comported himself in a moral and ethical manner. It is the jury that decides his guilt, not a judge. An accused is presumed innocent. The reason for this is because in order for there to be evidence of an event, an event must have taken place. You cannot examine a non-event. Now think about this. If I am out hunting and I come across a warm patch of hay that is laid down, I will know that deer have lain there recently. I have evidence of an event since an event has taken place; the deer have lain here. It is not ever logical to ask someone to prove their innocence. Innocence cannot be proven. If you have done nothing there is no evidence. This is why it is incumbent upon the accuser to prove their case. It is typical of the Crown and their minions to make bizarre claims and then attempt to shift the onus of proof onto their hapless victims but they are clumsy and blatant in their attempts. If one thinks about the bizarre claims that the British make about God, one finds them trying to defend their claim by a similar process of logical reversal. Asking them to prove the existence of their God they either point to the book they wrote or ask you to prove to them that their God does not exist. It is their claim that God exists and thus it is up to them to prove their claim. If they claim their God gave them the earth it is of course incumbent upon them to produce said God. It is illogical to claim there is a God and then ask us to prove there isn’t when we say Bullshit. As noted above, you cannot prove the non-existence of something that does not exist. You can only prove the existence of something that does exist. The British God is as phoney as they are.

All other “systems of law” other than natural law are illegitimate. British Common Law is a coerced agreement between a despotic monarch and peers of the realm. It has nothing to do with the emancipation of subject slaves. It is nothing more than Imperial UK feudal rules and regulations. Maritime Law and Admiralty Law are virtually synonymous. This is the law of the high seas, also known as Piracy. The law of the high seas is; there is no law. Canada’s ecclesiastical courts operate a kind of bastardized mixture of Common-Piracy-Equity police state law. The whole lot is illegitimate, but incredibly lucrative. Crime pays big time for the Crown in Canada. Most of all there is no crime until the RCMP move in with their little ticket books and start ticketing everything in sight. They also get to auction off any “stolen property” they recover. (I thought selling stolen property was a crime? NOT when the RCMP do it?) All proceeds from crime also go to the Crown. Not only do they get everything from criminal cases, if they can legislate a crime they can seize your property as well. Call a plant that God gave to Man a drug and you can steal everything a pot smoking hippy owns as proceeds from “crime”. What a scam! The most insidious component of these judicial atrocities is of course; mind control. Bust a young man for a joint of pot and he has a criminal record that negatively impacts everything he does. In how many ways are we “criminalized” by this system that makes us believe we are the criminals? The “lawyers of God” who tell you that everything you do is a crime for which you must pay them whatever amount they can suck out of you sound like the “priests of God” who tell you that you are born into sin and must give them everything you can in order to save your soul from their Satanic God. All a lawyer has to do to steal everything you own is write a rule or regulation into a book. This is how the criminals make you look like you are a criminal while they rob you. (This is of course slavery.) It requires an inordinate amount of gullibility on our part, which of course is more than motive enough to ‘dumb down’ a population.

Natural Law is predicated upon a Golden Rule; “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. It is also based upon a few fundamental tenets; errare humanum est, corpus humanum non recipit aestimationem, mens rea, corpus delecti, ab abusu ad usum non valet consequential, caveat emptor, etc… To sum up the law; Natural Law is the only legitimate and logical form of Law. It is logical to assume that if you comport yourself in a moral and ethical manner you will never break the law. Undermine morals and ethics and you undermine the Natural Laws of Man that are promulgated by reason and empathy. Equity courts govern the independent arbitration of disputes arising out of valid written agreements. What is “legal” refers to agreements between competent parties that have been written down. To say something is “legal” in reference to another man means that there is a written agreement that he is signatory to. Legal contracts have to follow a few guidelines in order to be lawful. You cannot contract to commit a crime. Such contracts are unlawful, void and unenforceable. To be lawful a legal contract must have full disclosure, mutual consideration and mutual agreement. Strictly speaking, if it is not specifically enumerated in the agreement, it is not part of the agreement. If you are not mutually compensated it is not lawful. If you are forced to sign under any form of duress it is not lawful. There is no such thing as an assumpsit, assumption or presumption in a lawfully valid legal contract. It is easy to see that if we follow the few simple rules above and honour our contracts that disputes will rarely arise. One must always remember that the Legal Industry requires victims, er customers, like any other industry. It is for this reason that they legislate people into a position of absolute jeopardy. It makes them easy targets.

The definition of FREE is an interesting one; not subject to the legal constraint of another. Can you see that the entire British legal system is quite simply nothing more than slavery when it is applied to free men? Though you may have a million glib and benevolent reasons you can never legitimately make an argument for imposing legislation on a free man because it is a crime and nothing ever justifies crimes against humanity. Unless we have a specific agreement, nothing I do is of any business of yours unless I do you an injury. It is for this reason that the valid law is unwritten. Free men are self governing and not subject to legislation. What is legislation? A legal constraint. What is a legal constraint? It is whatever you have agreed to in writing. Now look at the definition of a legal contract again. Have you entered into a valid lawful contract with the government that would allow them to collect an income tax from you? It is only the public that have entered into a contract with the Crown and that is why the Crown only pays the Public. Let the public pay their own damn taxes, they get all the benefits. It is odd that the Crown tells their victims that they can find the income tax act in the library when it is obvious that their victim should have a complete copy of the Act that CCRA should have provided them with when they supposedly entered into the agreement. To say that we get nothing for our taxes is an understatement. We get far less than nothing for our taxes. This is evidenced by the very fact that our country is in debt. In fact, our children are born into debt. Who entered them into a legal agreement that would compel performance? Debt peonage is slavery. Taxes are slavery. When you control all aspects of a man’s life, that is slavery and when you have an interest in him as a hu-man being, that is slavery.

35
comments:

Anonymous
said...

The tricky thing when you discuss "natural law" and "unwritten law" is that people disagree about it. Who are you to tell me that your conception of natural law supercedes my conception of it, or my neighbor's? Disputes cannot be reliably resolved this way, because if we disagree, I can just say "well I don't agree with your idea of the law."

Sure, it's wrong to murder, but what if my definition of murder is different from yours? There are legitimate differences in opinion about these things - take murder in self-defense, for example. Some people think it's OK, some people don't. Who's right? Who judges? You? Me? You can put a jury of "peers" up there to judge, but what if they all happen to think murder in self-defense is OK? That's why we transition from unwritten law to written law - so that we can have an immutable standard by which all men are judged. Otherwise, the entire concept of "law" is meaningless.

Now of course written laws aren't perfect; no one says they are. Otherwise, they would never be changed, and we'd still be living with the same laws we had 500 years ago. When we change laws, we admit that they are imperfect. However, so are people. You write as though it's a black-and-white battle between freedom and slavery. It's not. It is (or it should be) a reasonable debate about exactly what is the proper amount of freedom people should have. All of this drama and fear-mongering only serves to clutter up the discourse and muddle the waters further.

Some people think it's OK, some people don't. Who's right? Who judges? You? Me? You can put a jury of "peers" up there to judge, but what if they all happen to think murder in self-defense is OK? That's why we transition from unwritten law to written law - so that we can have an immutable standard by which all men are judged. Otherwise, the entire concept of "law" is meaningless.

So you transition to written law to have an immutable standard... who decides this immutable standard? Why would you even want standardized directives when each case is different?

Natural law is the golden rule. If you don't injure, steal from, or break a contract with another man, you are free to do as you wish. The millions of statutes they call laws don't apply to free men anyway (they apply to your "person") and require your consent to have the force of law. These millions of statutes were written by lawyers and politicians without your consent, so why would you follow them? What compels you as a free man to follow a bunch of directives written by other men without your consent? Some lawyers and politicians decide to write that growing a natural plant is against the law and growing it will land you in jail for years. What right do they have to decide such a thing? Why would you follow their silly written directives in the first place? If you're a free man, you are not bound by the legal constraint of another man/government... that's the definition of FREE in Black Law Dictionary.

You write as though it's a black-and-white battle between freedom and slavery. It's not. It is (or it should be) a reasonable debate about exactly what is the proper amount of freedom people should have.

It's very black and white. Freedom is freedom, it doesn't come in quantities. You say we need a reasonable debate about how much freedom people should have!? Spoken like a true slave. Everyone should have complete freedom to do whatever they want until their freedom impinges on the freedom of another. That is the golden rule and that is natural law. You can grow your pot plants and smoke them all day... it's not my business or the government's what you do with your body on your land. If, however, you're stoned and crash your car into my barn, the injury you've caused to my property is reason to charge you and try the case before a jury of our peers.

To further clarify my position, read this passage from my Asbestos Head book:

They’ve got laws for everything Now and just keep adding more. Laws are anti-freedoms enforced through the loss of even more freedom. I have more faith in individuals operating under their own volition to tend toward the greater good, than I do policemen, statesmen, lawyers, and judges operating under this system of supposed justice. We have more faith in Our silly laws than Our neighbors and that's the real problem. Laws leave crime victims powerless to right their own wrongs the way they see fit, and instead pay and empower unaffected people to enforce standardized punishment.

If someone lies to, steals from, cheats, kidnaps, rapes, or murders someone I know, then me, my friends, and my family deserve to deliver the punishment. Not only that, but in these intense situations, me, my friends, and my family do not want to sit still and wait for cops to do the best they can with what the law provides. We're going to do the best We can with what God provides and use Our God given freedom to enforce Our own ethics, whether it's retribution or forgiveness, justice should be whatever just Us decide.

Suppose I watch you kill my daughter. The law says for me to leave you be, call the police, collect evidence, consult a lawyer, then testify to a box of peers, who'll hopefully lock you away through years of appeals until finally you get the death penalty or die of old age. If instead I do the natural thing in such a situation and kill you myself, then it's your daughter's turn to collect evidence, consult the lawyer, testify to a box of peers, who'll keep me in and out of appeals, each one feeding the system, paying police and judicial employee paychecks, greasing those greedy wheels of capitalist justice with years of Our grief, just for doing the just thing.

Furthermore, suppose I watch you kill my daughter and instead of wishing you dead, instead of pursuing retribution of some sort, suppose I wish to take the highest moral ground and end the cycle of suffering, to stop the continuation of evil with my unconditional forgiveness. Suppose I wish to pardon you from all punishment, I wish you no harm and that your family need not grieve the way Ours does. If after all this I actually wish for your forgiveness, We'll find it's against the law. I have to destroy evidence, consult a lawyer, then testify to a box of peers that it's all insanity, forgive those fifteen sardines and send them home, We love everybody and We're so sorry, please love Us and leave Us alone, stop locking Us up in courtrooms and let Us determine Our own misdemeanors! At least give Us forgiveness as an option!

How do you define injuring? How do you define the proper punishment? If someone punches me, am I entitled to punch them back or to break their neck? If someone kills my daughter, am I entitled to kill them? To kill their daughter? To beat them severely? You have to admit there are differing opinions on some issues, and there isn't really a clear way for us to state which one we as a society will follow (I notice that you didn’t answer my question on murder in self-defense, by the way).

If justice is to be exacted by me and my family, what happens when the criminal's family is stronger than mine? It sounds like you want to go back to the old days of might makes right. We have laws so that justice can be exacted regardless of the relative power of those involved. The laws invoke a higher power than the criminal, the power of the society (which ideally is synonymous with the government, although I'd be the first to agree that our implementation isn't perfect).

As far as freedom being an absolute, I think it's pretty easy to illustrate. Take any relationship, romantic or otherwise, you've ever been in. I have a girlfriend; I can't go make out with whoever I want. I've lived with roommates for many years; I can't blast whatever music I want at 4 in the morning. And yet, I’m not enslaved by these relationships; quite the contrary, I am rewarded by them in ways that transcend the freedom to do whatever I want. In reality, I don’t think having total freedom appeals to most people – look how many people choose to become married, severely limiting their freedom in return for something that vastly transcends it.

It’s the same, although on a lesser scale, with being a member of society. We give up some of our freedoms in return for being a member of a smoothly functioning society - like a smoothly functioning relationship requires compromise. Imagine if I were to assert my freedom to drive on whatever side of the road I wished. As long as I didn’t actually run into someone, it wouldn’t break the golden rule, but it would cause chaos. The system would break down. The only way to have a society that functions smoothly is for its members to relinquish some of their freedoms – now we can certainly discuss to what extent that freedom should be limited, and plenty of people do, but it is most assuredly not a black-and-white issue. There are shades of grey here.

You even implicitly admit that you don’t think it’s black and white. “Everyone should have complete freedom to do whatever they want until their freedom impinges on the freedom of another.” Isn’t it a limitation on my freedom to have to respect your freedom? I can do whatever I want, until you don’t want me to? At what point does your freedom supercede my freedom? Is it when I want a job that you also want, or when I want the money hidden in your dresser? You talk as though you can live in a society without ever impinging on someone else’s freedom; this is not correct. If we are in contact, we are impinging on each other’s freedom in some way, however insignificant. Two people in a store want the freedom to have the best apple; two people on a website want the freedom to be right; two people on the highway want the freedom to pass that slow old lady in the wrong lane. It’s a fact of life in any society. We don’t live as hermits on our own property with our own weed; we live together, in a society, with common areas, common resources, and common rules.

Now if you take issue with a specific law, such as the prohibition of weed, that’s a separate issue, and many people, probably myself included although I haven’t really researched the issue, would agree with you. But that’s not the same as the system itself being fundamentally invalid. It just means you don’t agree with one thing society decided on, just like I don’t agree that you should get the job that I also want.

How do you define injuring? How do you define the proper punishment? If someone punches me, am I entitled to punch them back or to break their neck? If someone kills my daughter, am I entitled to kill them? To kill their daughter? To beat them severely? You have to admit there are differing opinions on some issues, and there isn't really a clear way for us to state which one we as a society will follow (I notice that you didn’t answer my question on murder in self-defense, by the way).

You're right that "there isn't really a clear way for us to state which one we as a society will follow" because each case is unique and cannot be standardized. All those questions and definitions are left up to 12 impartial peers in a court of natural law, if and only if another human being (not a government, bank, corporation etc.) personally charges you with said injury, theft, or breach of contract. It's not up to me, you, lawyers or politicians to answer those questions you raised as each case is 100% unique and must be treated as such. And they ARE treated as such in courts of natural law with proper juries, but you seem unaware of the fact that such courts are virtually non-existent nowadays having long been replaced by Maritime, Corporate, and other kangaroo courts practicing corporate law. Natural law remains unwritten and that will never change. The "laws" (statutes) they keep writing are not "law" but "legislation." Check the definitions. Legislation requires your consent. Free men do not consent to another man's legislation. Free men are self-governing (And that includes murdering in self-defense).

As far as freedom being an absolute, I think it's pretty easy to illustrate. Take any relationship, romantic or otherwise, you've ever been in. I have a girlfriend; I can't go make out with whoever I want. I've lived with roommates for many years; I can't blast whatever music I want at 4 in the morning. And yet, I’m not enslaved by these relationships; quite the contrary, I am rewarded by them in ways that transcend the freedom to do whatever I want. In reality, I don’t think having total freedom appeals to most people – look how many people choose to become married, severely limiting their freedom in return for something that vastly transcends it.

Just because you have made a choice doesn't mean you have given up freedom. Just because you've chosen to have a girlfriend, doesn't mean you didn't have the freedom to do otherwise. And just because you've chosen to have a girlfriend doesn't mean you don't have the freedom to cheat on her. You use your absolute freedom in every second of every day, even if you pretend you don't. You decide every second to have or not have a girlfriend, to blast or not blast your music.

The only way to have a society that functions smoothly is for its members to relinquish some of their freedoms

Are you serious? You're making me frown upside down :) :( Once again, spoken like a true slave.

You even implicitly admit that you don’t think it’s black and white. “Everyone should have complete freedom to do whatever they want until their freedom impinges on the freedom of another.” Isn’t it a limitation on my freedom to have to respect your freedom? I can do whatever I want, until you don’t want me to? At what point does your freedom supercede my freedom?

It's not a limitation on your freedom to respect my freedom, because you have the freedom not to respect my freedom if you want. However, if your disrespect causes me or mine injury/loss and I feel I have enough evidence to convince 12 of our impartial peers, then your non-observance of the Golden Rule will come back around to balance the scales of justice.

So, making choices doesn't relinquish freedom? How is the case of not blasting music because of the consequences any different from the case of not driving on the wrong side of the road because of the consequences? I mean, I still have the freedom to ignore the law, just as I have the freedom to ignore my girlfriend; I just have to be willing to accept the consequences of that ignorance. Why is only one of those situations considered slavery?

Similarly, I don't see how I would be any less enslaved by a jury of 12 peers judging me according to thier individual conceptions of natural law than I am by a jury of peers judging me according to the written legislation; the former will just be much harder to predict, and is bound to return different verdicts depending on who happens to be on the jury. Either way, I'm being subjected to someone else's will.

In the case of murder in self-defense, for example (or take an even more contentious issue like abortion), those 12 people you put on that jury are likely to have wildly different ideas of what the right decision is. Plenty of people would say that murder in self-defense is not acceptable. What happens if my jury happens to all hate murder in self-defense, and yours happens to love it? Do you get off scot-free and I serve a life sentence?

How much further down this semantic slippery slide do you want to go? Your responses make me face-palm laugh like listening to a slave arguing for indentured servitude.

I mean, I still have the freedom to ignore the law, just as I have the freedom to ignore my girlfriend; I just have to be willing to accept the consequences of that ignorance. Why is only one of those situations considered slavery?

Because your girlfriend doesn't have a corrupt and well-financed system of judges, lawyers, courts, politicians, lobbyists, police, SWAT, IRS etc. to enforce her authority.

Similarly, I don't see how I would be any less enslaved by a jury of 12 peers judging me according to their individual conceptions of natural law than I am by a jury of peers judging me according to the written legislation

You don't get a jury of peers in the kangaroo courts that convict based on unlawful legislation (statutes). You get a single Freemason judge, a gold-trimmed Maritime Admiralty flag, and a statue of lady justice blindfolded. Big difference.

In the case of murder in self-defense, for example those 12 people you put on that jury are likely to have wildly different ideas of what the right decision is. Plenty of people would say that murder in self-defense is not acceptable. What happens if my jury happens to all hate murder in self-defense, and yours happens to love it? Do you get off scot-free and I serve a life sentence?

Your desire to standardize everything is hilarious. How many times shall I repeat this? Every case is 100% unique and the ethics involved cannot be standardized into some neat legislation that perfectly covers every instance. Each case must be treated individually and decided based on the merit and evidence provided. Peace.

I think you've failed to actually transition from theorizing about high-level justice to considering how actual real-world situations occur. There are 6 billion people on the planet, many of whom will commit some kind of crime in thier life. You can't honestly say that no two crimes are functionally similar with respect to the judicial system. As a juror only called to judge 1 or 2 cases in your life, you may not encounter them, but if you're professionally involved in the judicial system, you would. No two humans are exactly alike either, but as a professional doctor, you'd still encounter the same diseases with the same cures. If two people have a cold, you don't give one of them Tylenol and the other one epinephrine. You'll note, too, that in our corrupt system, we still have trials to determine the correct application of standardized laws; just as a doctor might examine you to determine the correct application of standardized cures.

Additionally, if you don't think ethics can be standardized into some neat piece of legislation, where do you get off saying the Golden Rule covers everything? What is the Golden Rule if not a standard piece of legislation? It doesn't happen to be written down, but all it takes to fix that is a pen.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but I'm pretty sure we still have juries in our corrupt courts, not blindfolded statues. I mean I've never personally been called for jury duty, but I know people who have and I don't see why they would have lied about it.

Again, I'm not arguing that the system isn't corrupt to some degree. However, that's a far cry from the system being fundamentally invalid. Because there is a problem with the system isn't necessarily a reason to throw it all out; it's a reason to examine and modify it; which is exactly what happens when laws get changed.

Yes, you're right. The system should be "modified" back to the original system of common law courts practicing natural law only. All Martitime, Corporate, and other kangaroo courts and their ever-expanding "laws" (statutes) should be ignored and NOT CONSENTED TO by all free men. To research where I'm getting my information from, look into the "Freeman Movement" or "Free Man on the Land." Here's a link to a great book on the subject. Peace.

I wonder if you could help me understand something. Why is it that when I attempt to engage you in a dialogue, instead of responding to and refuting my specific points, you avoid discussion and fall back on your theoretical maxims?

I had been assuming that your intent in running this website was to educate the "sheeple" (of which I am presumably a member), but you don't actually seem interested in dialogue. Surely you must be aware that your regular essays on the conspiracy amount to little more than exercises in propaganda, so I'm not sure what your actual purpose is.

I get the sense that you are a man who believes he has already found the truth and doesn't particularly care about helping others find it, as opposed to a man in search of truth or attempting to share the truth you have discovered, unless you're sharing it with people who already believe you, and I'm not entirely sure what the point of that would be.

I wonder if you could help me understand something. Why is it that when I attempt to engage you in a dialogue, instead of responding to and refuting my specific points, you avoid discussion and fall back on your theoretical maxims?

I am responding to specific points you're raising and engaging you in dialogue. Calling what I'm writing "theoretical maxim" doesn't lessen the fact that I am responding specifically to what you're asking. I don't know what more you want from me. Do you?

I had been assuming that your intent in running this website was to educate the "sheeple" (of which I am presumably a member), but you don't actually seem interested in dialogue. Surely you must be aware that your regular essays on the conspiracy amount to little more than exercises in propaganda, so I'm not sure what your actual purpose is.

Thanks for belittling my blog and calling it propaganda. I've been writing since 5 years old, and since I learned about the global conspiracy, it's become the main subject I want to write about.

I get the sense that you are a man who believes he has already found the truth and doesn't particularly care about helping others find it, as opposed to a man in search of truth or attempting to share the truth you have discovered, unless you're sharing it with people who already believe you, and I'm not entirely sure what the point of that would be.

That's funny, I get that feeling from you too. You seem much more interested in arguing semantics than actually learning anything. A Google search on the stuff you're asking me would suffice, but instead you'd rather jump hoops with me.

No you're not. My entire previous post went completely unanswered. What I am looking for here is an explanation of how you would apply your theoretical basis for law in real-world situations, and how you would deal with the difficulties that emerge. As with any other profession, with the law, the devil is in the details; once you start really looking into the details, it gets a lot more complicated. I work in structural engineering - in theory, everything about it can be reduced to a pretty simple set of principles. In practice, shit gets real complicated, real fast. That's why we have design codes instead of just designing everything from first principles. That's why we have to study engineering before we can practice; that's why lawyers have to study law before they can practice. When you actually work in a field, you realize how much more complicated everything is than people on the outside think. You can't just say "we should get rid of laws and work with just the Golden Rule" without thinking through all the details and expect any reasonable person to change their minds. It's complicated.

It's not precisely my intent to offend you (although I'll admit lines like "spoken like a true slave" aren't making me any more magnanimous), but you must admit your essays cross the line from education to propaganda. I mean, at the top of your blog you have a slideshow of "Masonic hand gestures," most of which are obviously just people who happened to get caught at a weird moment because they're photographed 24/7. Your posts are filled with extraneous statements like you i-sol-ating parts of words (many of which, by the way, a simple Google search would have told you have completely different derivations than what you're implying). You accompany your posts not with facts, but with images like "Freedom is in Peril" or "Taxation is Slavery," which clearly are intended not to augment your argument structurally, but to induce a response from the reader. I've even seen you blatantly make scientifically incorrect statements - my favorite is in an old post about numerology where you stated that water freezes at 32 degrees and melts at 33. You typically don't actually back up your arguments; you simply make statements. For example, "the natural law is of necessity unwritten." Why? "Natural Law is the only legitimate and logical form of Law." Why? "A slave follows rules and regulations." Why? You repeat yourself constantly, yet you don't actually justify yourself. This trend smacks of propaganda methods. Maybe it's just that these things are so obvious and intuitive to you, but this isn't how you convince a normal, relatively intelligent sheeple who's skeptical of anyone who suggests that 27th cousin is a close relation. This doesn't necessarily invalidate your essays, but it does make them something different than I expect you wanted them to be.

It's not semantics to ask about details. I don't really know what else to say about that last bit except that it's completely ludicrous for YOU to accuse ME of arguing semantics, Mr. Find Sol-ace in Mon-thly Cere-mon-ies. Challenging you to think through your arguments and explain why your many statements are valid is not something I would dismiss as "jumping hoops." I'm on your website; I'm not here to discuss what Google thinks about law. If I want to know what Google thinks, I'll ask Google. Since I want to know what you think, I'm asking you.

What I am looking for here is an explanation of how you would apply your theoretical basis for law in real-world situations, and how you would deal with the difficulties that emerge.

Again, this is not theory. Common law courts exist. I didn't just imagine them. I'm saying no more maritime admiralty law, no more civil, regulatory, statutary, corporate kangaroo courts. Just common law courts abiding by natural law i.e. the golden rule.

Philsophically you seem to love control and bureaucracy and admitted you think populations need to give up freedoms for a smooth-functioning society. Any society that takes away freedoms and replaces them with endless statutory law and bureaucracy is not what I call "smooth-functioning." Are tribal and aboriginal societies not smooth-functioning? Would you go to the Amazon or the Outback and try to convince them they need to give up some freedoms and introduce various systems of law to help them have a smooth-functioning society?

I mean, at the top of your blog you have a slideshow of "Masonic hand gestures," most of which are obviously just people who happened to get caught at a weird moment because they're photographed 24/7.

I have used these hand-signs and hand-shakes to greet people whom I've seen wearing Masonic rings etc. and they assume I'm a Mason because this is their little secret code language. These hand-signs are real, they have been published in books by defunct Masons. No need to blame me or call my website propaganda just because you're naive to the inner-workings of secret societies. Check out Mason JSM Ward's book. 9 out of 10 celebrities and politicians are Masons, and most are directly related to various royal bloodlines.

Your posts are filled with extraneous statements like you i-sol-ating parts of words (many of which, by the way, a simple Google search would have told you have completely different derivations than what you're implying).

Traditional etymology isn't the only way that words are created. Just because a dictionary tells you one thing in Latin or whatever, doesn't mean that's the whole truth. Can your dictionary tell you why God is Dog backwards? Or Live is Evil backwards? Can your dictionary tell you the alchemical reason that Soul, Solar, and Solace are related?

I've even seen you blatantly make scientifically incorrect statements - my favorite is in an old post about numerology where you stated that water freezes at 32 degrees and melts at 33.

If we're moving by integers, you take some water and cool it, it starts to freeze when you reach 32F. If you take an ice cube and start to heat it, it begins melting when you reach 33F. The numbers used are arbitrary... so why do you think they chose Freemasonic numbers? You think it's a coincidence that 13 (York-rite) inches equals exactly 33 (Scottish-rite) centimeters? Your so left-brained that this etymology, numerology, and hand-sign symbology just goes over your head. Again, no need to blame me or call out "propaganda" just because you can't think holistically.

I refer to it as "theory" because instead of discussing specific situations, you're just saying "it should be common law, not written law." That doesn't address specific cases, which is what I've tried to get you to address. There's also nothing magical about "unwritten law" - nothing momentous happens when you write down the Golden Rule.

I would not tell the Aborigines to give up their freedoms - because their society isn't developed enough to require the same degree of regulation that ours does. They don't need to only walk on the right side of the path; since we have cars going 80 mph, we need a rule for that to keep things functioning smoothly. The comparison isn't valid.

I'm not saying the symbols themselves aren't legitimate signals - I'm saying that if you photograph anyone as much as celebrities and politicians are photographed, you'll catch them in that kind of position. Many of those pictures appear to be just that.

Your conception of etymology allows for no happenstance. Think in terms of probabilities. Because "not" is "ton" backwards does not imply etymological relation. That's why we have professionals in these fields - it's not that simple. Sometimes things just appear related, but actually aren't.

Allow me to explain to you how the freezing point actually works. Water both freezes and melts at 32 degrees F. As you cool water, when it hits 32 degrees, the cooling process stops and the water begins to transition to ice. All the additional energy you remove from that water goes into the conversion from water to ice - the temperature remains at 32 degrees. As you heat ice, the temperature reaches 32 degrees and then stops as the conversion to water takes place. This concept is called "heat of fusion" - look it up. There is no magical jump to 33 degrees when you melt it unless you apply heat very quickly or you apply a lot of pressure.

I would not tell the Aborigines to give up their freedoms - because their society isn't developed enough to require the same degree of regulation that ours does. They don't need to only walk on the right side of the path; since we have cars going 80 mph, we need a rule for that to keep things functioning smoothly. The comparison isn't valid.

We disagree so fundamentally that getting into specifics is unnecessary. You think tribal societies aren't as "developed" as ours (as if development is a good thing) then you say because we're so "developed" we require more regulation. If "development" necessitates less freedom, then I don't consider that "development" at all. Freedom is absolutely paramount. I consider our society (so-called "civilization") in a devolved state from that of natural freedom. The Native Americans were "civilized" in my understanding of that word, and the genocidal Europeans that came, killed them off, and forced the few left onto reservations were/are brutes and uncivilized. Having big buildings, roads, police and millions of anti-freedoms (laws) is not what I call civilized.

And even with your example, why do we need laws punishable by fines/jail-time for driving differently? You can have traffic rules and signs etc. without having standardized punishment for those who go against the grain. You don't have to give silly rules the force of law for most people to follow them anyway. Even the death penalty doesn't deter everyone from murder, so what's the point? You can't scare a population into submission with ever-increasing anti-freedoms... all that does is fuel the fire of rebellion... sets the yang into motion from too much yin. Please have a look at this video to illustrate my points:

As for the etymology, symbols, and numbers, you can say "coincidence" all day long, and I can say "conspiracy" all day long. Your understanding is very left-brained, mine is very right-brained. I'll meet you in the middle at the corpus collosum and we'll surf brain-waves to free-dumb is-land. Piece.

Now you really are arguing semantics! I'm not passing a value judgement on whether a "more developed" society is objectively or morally better than an "less developed" one ("developed" in the technological sense); I'm not even totally sure which side of that argument I'd take. I'm simply saying that given that we are as developed as we are, we need rules to manage it. It's not about "most people" following the rules - you're right, most people will follow the rules of thier own volition. But it doesn't take 100 people driving on the wrong side of the road or parking thier car in front of trains to kill people; it only takes one. That's why we have laws and punishments and things to restrict people's freedom so that that one erratic person doesn't screw everything up for a great many people. When you're walking along a path in the forest, it's not such a huge deal; when you're cruising down the highway at 150mph with an RPG in the back seat, well now there's a problem.

If you'd like to argue that we should depopulate the cities and go back to a pastoral society, of course you can do that, and there are legitimate arguments to be made there - but that's not quite what you've been saying here.

I'm not sure why you say that we disagree so fundamentally that there's no use in talking specifics - I mean fundamentally, sure, I agree that following the Golden Rule is a great basis for behavior. Who wouldn't? In fact, I'd argue that good laws are an expression of the "natural law" - an attempt to codify an imperfect conception of the perfect natural law in order to avoid the even worse problems that arise when we all have our individual imperfect conceptions of the natural law. Actually, to make a foray into semantics, I'd say that our disagreement is fundamentally in the specifics!

None of this is really an issue of left brain vs right brain though. You can't say the melting point of water is 33 degrees and back it up with "oh, I'm right brained." How you think about it is irrelevant; it's whether your statements are correct or not that matters. In this case, you were incorrect - which is fine, until you use your ignorance as evidence for a global conspiracy.

I'm not even saying that everything is coincidence. What I'm saying is that you can't make connections based on what sounds or looks right to you, because all too often, you aren't going to know what the hell you're talking about (which, again, is fine until you start using that ignorance as a basis for something important). Linguistics is a distinctive profession precisely because etymology isn't as simple as what words look similar to others, similar to how thermodynamics is a distinctive field because not everyone knows what heat of fusion is. And that's OK, you don't need to know what it is - but don't think you've noticed all these obvious connections that somehow slipped past everyone else.

But it doesn't take 100 people driving on the wrong side of the road or parking thier car in front of trains to kill people; it only takes one. That's why we have laws and punishments and things to restrict people's freedom so that that one erratic person doesn't screw everything up for a great many people.

So we agree that people will follow societal rules/norms 99% of the time anyway out of mutual respect and decency. Our difference of opinion is what to do about the 1% of incidents that fall outside that bracket. If you understand the concept of balance, yin and yang, then you know that the seed of yin is always present in an overabundance of yang and vice versa. Therefore, there will always be that 1% no matter what. As we established, even captial punishment doesn't deter murderers from murdering. So no matter what the standardized punishment enforced, people will occasionally do things outside of the societal norm and outside of any "law" (anti-freedom) that is written. Why then should we punish people who fall into that 1% instead of dealing with them in unique, creative, and compassionate ways? (i.e. doing nothing, a slap on the wrist, driving lessons etc., instead of a fine or jail-time) And more importantly, why should we incite fear of standardized punishment in 100% of people through these millions of anti-freedoms? Am I to believe that you, Ben, have never ever been in that 1% at some point in your life? I know myself and most everyone I know has been in that 1% at various times thanks to various inescapable situations and I've never thought that myself or anyone else deserved to have their money or freedom taken away just because, oh my God, they did something against societal norm! Gasp! Quickly, create a bureaucracy of strangely dressed minions to enforce millions of incoherent anti-freedoms! We must have systems of fear, control, and standardized punishment! Right, Mr. Ben?

You can't say the melting point of water is 33 degrees and back it up with "oh, I'm right brained."

You're so left-brained you can only see the "scientific" explanation for something. Yes, I understand the freezing point/melting point fusion concept. I learned that in high school too. Thanks for the refresher. What they didn't teach you in your government textbooks is why temperature is even measured in "degrees." Why do you wear a Mason's mortar board on your head when you receive your school "degree"? Why are there 32 "degrees" of ice, just like the typical 32 degrees of Masonry? The 33rd degree is special and reserved only for the 'elite.' Why are there exactly 13 inches (# of degrees in York-Rite Masonry) in 33 centimeters (# of degrees in Scottish-Rite Masonry)? I could go on and on (and I have in the numerology section if you're interested) but I have a feeling no matter how many examples I give you, you'll still cry "coincidence" and crawl back in your left-brain prison.

...the reason is scientific. I don't know what you're trying to say. There is no 33 degrees involved with the melting of water. No connection exists there, right- or left-brained, because there is no 33 degrees to connect to. If you want to argue that the number 32 is significant, then you may do so and I wouldn't be able to refute you, because I don't happen to know why the number 32 was chosen - for all I know, it could have been for Masonic reasons. But you didn't say that - you said that the melting point of water is 33 degrees, which is demonstrably false. There's no way to think about that which makes it OK; it's just plain incorrect. If you understood the concept, then why would you say something so obviously ridiculous?

I have read your numerology section, don't worry. That's where I got this example from.

The intent of laws doesn't necessarily need to be to stop 100% of crimes; it can be to simply reduce the crimes and still have validity. You'll never stop every single murderer, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't punish those who murder. You’ll never totally eliminate world hunger either – does that mean we shouldn’t feed the starving? Anyway, how would this be any different than your system? Murderers should still be punished under natural law, shouldn't they?

Of course I've done things that are against the law. I've also broken rules of various organizations I've been a part of, and sometimes I've been punished for those infractions. Sometimes I agree with those rules, sometimes I don't, but this is all irrelevant to the question of whether it's fundamentally OK to have rules at all. If I were going to argue that the rules should apply to everyone but me, there'd be a deeper issue here!

You're employing a rather transparent straw man. This is not a matter of punishing people who go "against the societal norm." That's what we call "discrimination." Wearing a weird T-shirt may be against the societal norm, but it's not illegal. Things that are illegal are (ideally) things that disrupt the functioning of society and/or cause harm to other people. Brushing it off as punishing anyone who goes against the societal norm is totally invalid.

You'll never stop every single murderer, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't punish those who murder. You’ll never totally eliminate world hunger either – does that mean we shouldn’t feed the starving? Anyway, how would this be any different than your system? Murderers should still be punished under natural law, shouldn't they? ... Things that are illegal are (ideally) things that disrupt the functioning of society and/or cause harm to other people.

Cause harm to other people, yes, "disrupt the functioning of society", no. The important difference however is that in common law courts abiding by natural law, only affected natural persons (human beings) can make a claim. Nowadays we pay and empower various unaffected and non-natural persons to make/enforce civil, statutory, regulatory, corporate claims. DA's, police, corporations etc. should not and cannot make "lawful" claims. They can only make "legal" claims. And as I keep saying, only lawful claims should be made (as stated by natural law) and this means that only the affected natural persons are involved. If I harm your person, property or breach a contract, then and only then can you make a lawful claim against me. If I'm speeding, not wearing my seatbelt, J-walking, or whatever I have not done anything unlawful. The only unlawful thing is when a policeman takes me to court under color of law for these so-called offenses.

There is no 33 degrees involved with the melting of water. No connection exists there, right- or left-brained, because there is no 33 degrees to connect to. If you want to argue that the number 32 is significant, then you may do so and I wouldn't be able to refute you, because I don't happen to know why the number 32 was chosen - for all I know, it could have been for Masonic reasons.

The numbers 32 and 33 are important in Masonry and you brought up a parallel I hadn't thought of yet. My great uncle, my co-workers father, and a couple other acquaintances are 32nd degree Masons and they said that attaining the 32nd degree was something any diligent Mason could do, but to become 33rd degree you must put in lots of effort and money (energy) and do something that impresses the higher-ups. This is analogous to all the fusion energy you mentioned that happens at the 32nd degree before you're able to raise to 33.

"And as I keep saying, only lawful claims should be made (as stated by natural law) and this means that only the affected natural persons are involved."

A couple posts ago, I mentioned that you constantly repeat yourself with no supporting arguments. This is exactly what I mean. Why do you believe this? Just saying it over and over isn't a discussion; it's a technique used in propaganda and indoctrination. You have to provide an explanation of why the above statement is true or desirable if you want to convince a reasonable person. I know that you think natural law is the only valid law; I'm not asking you to tell me again, I'm asking you to tell me why.

Does that make sense?

See, now you can go somewhere with the 32-33 degrees. I can call your statement laughable, but I can't actually tell you it's wrong. All I can say is that you have no evidence to support your claim; but that's much better than you being demonstrably incorrect. I could remind you that correlation is not causation, but that's not proof; besides, I think you've left that concept pretty far behind anyway!

The only thing needed to support my arguments are the definitions from any law dictionary. I've repeated the definitions and given endless examples and you still insist that I'm not providing evidence. Natural law, by definition, is the only lawful law. Everything else is legal, not lawful. Look up the definitions.

The "legal" system is fraudulent and empowers unaffected parties to rape money and freedom from natural persons. Originally there were only common law courts operating under natural law... now we have a whole "legal system" of various types of courts where governments, corporations, etc. (non-natural persons) can make color of law claims against natural persons. This is by definition unlawful. I have given many examples already, but you need just look at the definitions of the words I'm using to prove this to yourself.

I don't think you're getting what I'm trying to say. You are not just looking at the definitions; I don't particularly care what they say. You are looking at a state of affairs and making a value judgement that the world should be otherwise. This is not self-evident, and it cannot be proven by means of definitions. You could define freedom as having no upper teeth if you wanted, and it would not imply a value judgement. The only thing that is good by definition is goodness itself.

I'm willing to work with any definition you like; but the definition itself is not sufficient evidence to assert that a thing is good or bad. Yes, written law is different than natural law - I'm not arguing otherwise. But why does that make it bad? Different does not imply bad.

If you like analogies - Your argument with definitions is analagous to two people arguing about apples vs oranges. If one person were to ask "why do you think apples are better?" the other would hardly respond "because oranges are by definition not apples." It's true, but it's a far cry from implying a necessary value judgement.

As I keep saying, all written legislation creates standardized offenses and standardized punishments delivered by unaffected agents of the matrix. The burden of proving this system advantageous is all on you, not me. Why do you think unaffected non-natural persons (governments, corporations, etc.) should have millions of statutes used to keep us, sovereign human beings, in line? You and I are on the same side, Ben. Why are you arguing for the slave-masters? Do you honestly think the government has your best interests in mind when they give you a ticket for not wearing your seat-belt?

Legally your child MUST attend 12 years of government indoctrination, but not lawfully. Legally you MUST apply for a license to marry, but lawfully, you needn't do any such thing. Legally you MUST register your automobile with the government, but lawfully you don't have to register any possession! Legally you MUST BUY car insurance, but lawfully no one can force you to buy anything! I can go on and on giving you examples of how our legal system employs color of law to entrap people into consenting to unlawful mandates, but I have a feeling you just want to argue.

Yes, written law is different than natural law - I'm not arguing otherwise. But why does that make it bad?

In short, as I keep saying, every situation is 100% unique and therefore must be decided based on it's unique merit and evidence. This renders any system of standardized offenses and standardized punishments as invalid, because it assumes that everyone and everything is the same and can be treated as such. Juries are there for your protection against this kind of unbending dictatorial system you're promoting. A single judge enforcing standardized punishment from standardized legislation is unlawful, and the burden of proving this to be a good thing is up to you.

This is for Anonymous.... My name is Roger. I have been reading you, and Eric's posting going back and forth. I have to tell you. Eric does make some good point over all, and you been up some good points as well. But I see that Eric answers you every time. But for some reason you keep saying Eric is not answering you. I'm sorry I might not be as smart as Eric. And I may not be as smart as you are... But I do know that when one asks a question and gets an answer back ....That's the answer.... Maybe it's not the answer you are looking for, but it still is an answer. so why waste your time. Eric Keep up the good work. Over all you bring up some great point this is Roger from Maine My God keep you both safe in his love and grace...

I'm arguing for the "slave-masters" because I don't think they're slave masters. I think they're just regular people doing their jobs in a complicated world. Sure, they fall prey to the same vices we all do, but ultimately they're just people, not reptilian Martians. Personally, I'm glad many of these anti-freedoms are in effect. I'm glad not everyone is allowed to fly planes or possess weapons of mass destruction. The bad caused by the limitation on my freedom is far outweighed by the bad that would be caused otherwise.

You are vastly exaggerating how standardized this system is. It's not as if we plug a crime into a computer and spit out a verdict and sentence. We have juries and appeals. Judges and juries exist to determine the correct application of those standardized laws - which, fundamentally, is no different from a jury examining the correct application of natural law. In essence, the Golden Rule is the ultimate standardization of law - a law that supposedly covers all actions! You cant argue against the legal system because it's standardized and simultaneously argue in favor of a fundamentally even more standardized system!

As far as the burden of proof, it is always on the person trying to prove things should be different than they currently are. So back when Hammurabi wrote his Code, the burden of proof may have been on him - today, the status quo is that legal system, so the burden of proof is on you.

Roger, I will certainly concede that he has physically responded to all of my posts (if not all of my points), but he has not been understanding or responding to my actual point. This may very well be because I'm doing a poor job of explaining it, but that's why I keep saying that. He is arguing that we should change the system (making a value judgement that it is bad) without explaining why it is bad. "It's not natural law" is not a reason to say it's bad. My cat isn't natural law either, but that doesn't mean he's objectively bad.

I like the way the American Revolutionaries established and ordained their constitution. It's too bad nobody understands it.

"...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472

I live in Colorado where the people are self governed.

Article 2 section 2 of the Colorodo constitution states:

The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state;

Based on the two items above, if you are one of the people, and domiciled in Colorado you are self goverened. You live under the common law. Every state in the US is the same way.

One of the major points that has not been addressed is what I originally brought up – let me put it a slightly different way. Eric appears to be operating under the assumption that this concept of “natural law” is something that is obvious and immediately accessible by everyone, as though we can all look at a situation, tap into this mystical concept of “natural law” and immediately know what the right response is. This is not how things actually work. People disagree on things – Eric earlier stated that murder in self-defense is OK, so presumably he believes that it is in accordance with natural law; but not everyone believes that. Plenty of people would say that is not justified – presumably they believe it is not in accordance with natural law. So who’s right? How about abortion? Animal testing? Vegetarianism?

What’s obviously the right thing in Eric’s mind is not necessarily obvious in someone else’s – are we to just say “Eric’s so smart, we’ll do whatever he thinks?” Invoking natural law doesn’t help if we disagree on what natural law even says! So even if Eric does succeed in proving that natural law is the only desirable form of law (which as I have stated, he has not done), there are still significant complications to overcome, so his thesis is incomplete.

This is the point of all my text on the world being a complicated place – all these laws and systems didn’t just come into being because people felt like it. People who spent their lives working in a field decided it would be a good idea to write down the laws, or write down the guidelines for designing a structure, or write a textbook on the fundamentals of carpentry. I’ve only really learned this in the past year or so (since I became a professional) – almost every time you think something should be simpler than it is, it’s because you don’t understand how complicated it really is. Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge, as some old dude once said.

First of all, thanks to Billy for that response. It's much appreciated. Now, on to Ben:

Ultimately they're just people, not reptilian Martians.

Nice red herring. That's David Icke's non-sense, not mine.

Personally, I'm glad many of these anti-freedoms are in effect. I'm glad not everyone is allowed to fly planes or possess weapons of mass destruction. The bad caused by the limitation on my freedom is far outweighed by the bad that would be caused otherwise.

In response to this, allow me to quote Nonoun's response in the Natural Law vs. The Legal System post: "On the one hand Ben is arguing that the individual should be subservient to the state. On the other, Eric is arguing that the state should be subservient to the individual. While we consider the merits of their arguments let’s also look at the kind of societies that these philosophies produce. The reality beyond the rhetoric. The dominance of the state over the individual is the philosophy that has given us feudalism, communism, and fascism. It has given us imperialism, conscription, slavery, torture, and let’s not forget the inquisition. The surveillance state is one of it's most recent children. The dominance of the individual over the state is the philosophy that has driven emancipation movements."

Your philosophy is one of hierarchical control, mine is of equality and freedom. Only sociopaths and psychopaths agree with your point of view, and historically it hasn't worked. Thus, Ben, as I said, the burden of proof is on you, not me.

In essence, the Golden Rule is the ultimate standardization of law - a law that supposedly covers all actions! You cant argue against the legal system because it's standardized and simultaneously argue in favor of a fundamentally even more standardized system!

Double Face Palm I'm not even going to respond to this. This is the most ridiculous statement you've made yet and proves to me beyond a doubt that Tawan is correct in his analysis of your behavior:

"Ben is an argumentative dick. Until he prescribes HIS thesis on happiness for all who want it then I'm not speaking to him. And if me calling him a dick does not make him smile (thus doing my bit for global happiness) then I prescribe my own medicines on happiness on my blogs for his perusal. Where I must add that unless his comments are on happiness for all and how he is setting to contribute, I won't waste the energy to turn to fart in his general direction."

I have wasted hours of my energy farting in your general direction in hopes of helping your understanding, but your petty comments keep getting more and more trite and ridiculous as we go, to the point that I'm convinced that you are (as Bill Hicks would say) just a "fevered little ego tainting our collective unconscious." You are not here to learn anything or contribute anything beneficial. I hope other people reading have gleaned something useful from this "debate" because it's obvious that Ben is not here to expand his understanding, but rather to show-off his argumentative prowess. Congratulations, I know you're sitting there with a smug little smirk right now as your fevered ego relishes in this moment. Enjoy. I'm off to do something more beneficial with my time, like twiddling my thumbs or catching flies with chopsticks. Peace.

Hmm. I'm disappointed in myself for that last post. I'm sorry to Ben for my attitude. I guess I just don't have the patience to debate this with you without getting overly frustrated. I sincerely appreciate if you're trying to find the truth. Your journey is obviously very different from mine, and I just haven't got the energy to continue going back and forth about this. If after 33 (oh, coincidence? haha) posts we're still rehashing the same stuff, I don't think we're gonna get anywhere, and my head hurts from bashing it against the wall. So, sorry about the attitude, my frustration has gotten the best of me, and I bow out peacefully. Peace.